Culture for All

Monday, March 9, 2009

These pictures were taken by Iran's Mission to the UN - today. A last minute rally was organized by AMCHA at Iran's Mission to the UN to protest against Iran's genocidal incitement, nuclear program, and state sponsored terrorism. The few but proud showed up to voice their outrage at what is going on in Iran. Hopefully there will be more rallies like this to get the attention of the media regarding the abomination that is allowed to occur in Iran.

Friday, March 6, 2009

It seems that Germany has decided to not follow Obama's lead in boycotting Durban II, despite the fact that not only will the conference be an antisemitic hate fest, it also will seek to criticize criticism of Islam (and thus is anti-free speech). Not good. Any legitimacy given to this illegitimate and anti-humanity exercise is a bad thing.

Essentially, Hizballah is like the modern Nazi party, without having achieved the results yet of the Nazi party, despite their best hopes otherwise. They have explicitly stated their goal is the worldwide annihilation of every Jew on earth, and they air disgusting propoganda such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and scenes from a Passover "blood libel" (i.e., showcasing Jews eating the blood of Arab babies, mixed with Passover matzos), on Al-Manar TV, in order to brainwash Lebanese citizens into desiring genocide. (this is similar to what was done in Nazi Germany) I would say Al Manar is easily as bad or worse as anything that has come out of Nazi Germany, based upon the numerous MEMRI clips I have seen over the years. (and I do not exaggerate when I say that)

The fact that Britain now is recognizing Hizballah as a legitimate "political party" to be negotiated with is so beyond repugnant, it defies description.

I only hope that things will improve in the future. It is soon to be Shabbat, and I hope you have a good weekend!

As Obama endeavors on a 'new' journey of talks with Syria, the New York Times has decided it supports this 'engagement.' This is well evidenced by the way a 'neutral' article was written in the Times about this 'engagement.' This article places the onus upon Israel to 'negotiate' and ignores the ways in which Syria has obfuscated all efforts at 'peace' in the past. Syria's state sponsor of terrorism is barely a blip in this article, and it appears at the very bottom of this article. Instead, the onus is on Israel. Feel free to read for yourself what passes as 'news' in the New York Times. This article was not even one that hit CAMERA's website. Just another day the Times, which has their 'two state solution' ideology, and their 'Israel should concede something for 'peace' ideology, as well as their 'diplomacy is always a good thing' ideology. For more information about the New York Times and the ideology that appears in the news pages (as apart from the OpEds, please go to How Fit to Print, a new blog which examines the ideology of the New York Times.

JERUSALEM — Signaling a new direction in Middle East diplomacy, the Obama administration will send two senior officials to Syria this weekend to begin discussions with the government, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on a visit to Israel on Tuesday.

The overture suggests how the Obama administration intends to tackle three interlocking challenges in the Middle East: the nuclear threat posed by Iran [Note: this ignores the fact that Syria itself is going nuclear]; long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria; and the grinding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Syria, regional experts say, could be the key to alleviating all three. [NOTE: the names of these ‘regional experts’ is not given, and there is no reason given as to why Syria could be of help. Moreover, the fact that Syria itself is a major part of the problem, having occupied Lebanon for decades, including to this day, is ignored.]

By seeking an understanding with Syria, which has cultivated close ties to Iran, the United States could increase the pressure on Iran to respond to its offer of direct talks. Such an understanding would also give Arab states and moderate Palestinians the political cover to negotiate with Israel. [NOTE: The definition of what a ‘moderate’ is is left out. This is a crucial term and yet the reader is left to guess as to the meaning.] That, in turn, could increase the burden on Hamas, the Islamic militant [NOTE: the term ‘militant’ and not ‘terrorist’ is used; this is an editorial decision by the Times.] group that controls Gaza, to relax its hostile stance toward Israel. [NOTE: It is not suggested how this could be reconciled with Syria’s decision to allow Hamas terrorists sanctuary on their soil.]

But in a region where even small steps take years to negotiate, officials sought to tamp down expectations of rapid progress. “It is a worthwhile effort to go and begin preliminary conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting Syria’s wide influence in the region, as well as its troubled history with the United States. Yet, she cautioned, “we have no way to predict what the future of our relations with Syria might be.”

The State Department declined to elaborate on the issues the emissaries would broach in Syria or why negotiators were going now.

The two emissaries are Daniel B. Shapiro, a senior director at the National Security Council, and Jeffrey D. Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Mr. Feltman, a former ambassador to Lebanon, has extensive experience with Syria; Mr. Shapiro advised the Obama campaign on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Middle East experts say they believe that conditions for an opening to Syria are ripe on both sides. [NOTE: Who are these experts?]
“We’ve got a Syrian government that wants to engage,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and a peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. [NOTE: Was Mr. Indyk the ‘expert’ the whole time? And why does he want to believe that? How does this wash with Syria’s statements that they will never give up on the Golan? Where is that proof of ‘engagement’? Moreover, how does this wash with his earlier statements of Syria's involvement in terrorizing Lebanon, and its close ties to Iran?] “We’re likely to get an Israeli government that will find it easier to engage with Syria than with the Palestinians.”

There are clear benefits to Israel from better relations with Syria [NOTE: What about the benefits to Syria? Why is it framed as if Israel and not Syria has everything to gain?]: the government of President Bashar al-Assad is a sponsor of Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon, and provides a sanctuary for Hamas’s leaders in Damascus, Syria’s capital. [NOTE: Aren’t these also reasons to NOTE ‘engage’ with Syria?]

In May, Israel and Syria announced that they were in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty through Turkish mediators. [NOTE: The Turkish Prime Minister’s recent statements against Israel are omitted here, and the reader is left without the knowledge of how that would/could affect negotiations.] Israel’s departing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said he planned to brief Mrs. Clinton on those talks on Tuesday.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who is likely to become Israel’s next prime minister, will face pressure from the United States to move forward with the peace process. [NOTE: The Times outright says it will be Israel which is pressured and not Syria. Furthermore, stating that ‘negotiating’ is part of the ‘peace process’ is an editorial which is presented as news.] Mr. Indyk said that Mr. Netanyahu would find it more politically palatable to engage Syria than to alienate the settler movement by slowing or halting settlements as a concession to the Palestinians. [NOTE: The notion of a powerful ‘settler movement’ is introduced as an obstacle to ‘peace.’ Of course, the fact that this did not stop the Gush Katif evacuation is not worthy of mention to the Times.]

Nonetheless, Israeli public opinion polls show wide opposition to giving up the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war. [NOTE: The Syrian public opinion is seen as irrelevant. Only the Israeli public opinion is an ‘obstacle’ to ‘peace.’ Also note that the Times omits the fact that the Golan Heights was annexed by Israel and that fact affects its legal status.] In his previous stint as prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu initiated peace talks with Syria, but they came to nothing.

The Obama administration has carefully laid the groundwork for the envoys’ visit. Members of Congress, including Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, have recently traveled to the region. [NOTE: Depending on when the trip was scheduled (i.e., if it was during when Bush was in office, it could be a violation of the Logan Act. This is deemed irrelevant to the Times.] Last Thursday, Mr. Feltman met with Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha.

“We don’t engage in discussions for the sake of having conversations,” Mrs. Clinton said, after a meeting with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni. “There has to be a purpose to them; there has to be some benefit accruing to the United States and our allies.” [NOTE: What is the purpose, if Assad has stated on numerous times his demand for the Golan Heights?]

The Bush administration largely shunned Syria, recalling its ambassador in February 2005, after the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. [NOTE: Syria’s role in the Hariri assassination is buried at the bottom of the article, despite the fact that this could be a major impediment towards any fruitful ‘negotiations.’] Many Lebanese accuse Syria of involvement in the assassination, a charge it denies. A United Nations tribunal has begun proceedings in the case.

Mr. Feltman and Mr. Shapiro are accompanying Mrs. Clinton on her first tour of the Middle East as secretary of state, which began Monday in Egypt, where she said the United States would pursue peace “on many fronts.”

Meeting on Tuesday with Israel’s leaders during a time of political transition, Mrs. Clinton reaffirmed the desire of the United States for an agreement that would create a separate Palestinian state side by side with Israel. [NOTE: Why is this American desire relevant? What about the desire of Israel? Lest we forget, it is none of America’s business whether there is a ‘Palestine.’ This frames the issue of forcing Israel to concede territory that lawfully belongs to it.]

But she was plainly reluctant to step into a domestic political tussle. [NOTE: The Times is right to call this a domestic issue.] Mr. Netanyahu, who is likely to form a right-wing government in the coming days, has emphasized economic development in the West Bank over negotiations to create a Palestinian state.

“We happen to believe that moving toward the two-state solution, step by step, is in Israel’s best interests,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But obviously, it is up to the people and the government of Israel to decide.” [NOTE: Good acknowledgement that it is up to Israel to decide a domestic issue, BUT, Clinton is editorializing that “two states” is indeed a solution. The Times does not call her on that.]

Ms. Livni said she embraced a two-state solution [NOTE: Again, an editorial presented as fact that “two states” is a “solution.], a crucial difference between her Kadima Party and Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party, and one that has impeded Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to form a coalition with Kadima. Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Netanyahu on Tuesday.

She promised to consult Israel and other Middle Eastern countries as the United States develops its policy toward Iran. At a Gaza donors’ conference in Egypt on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates that she did not believe that Iran would respond positively to the Obama administration’s offer of direct talks.

Ms. Livni said she had no qualms about the American offer, but she maintained that Israel’s Muslim neighbors were as worried as Israel by Iran. “They feel that Iran tries to undermine their regimes,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton also declined to publicly press Israel to open border crossings into Gaza; critics say that closing the crossings has impeded the flow of humanitarian relief. [NOTE: This is untrue and Israel does allow aid to flow into Gaza.] Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza after Hamas took control of the territory in June 2007. [NOTE: the fact that this blockade was a defensive response to terror attacks is not mentioned.] It has allowed in aid since the end of the recent three-week assault on Hamas, but has not opened the crossings for many other goods.

On Monday, European officials said they expected Mrs. Clinton to raise the issue with the Israelis.But she said: “It’s very difficult to solve this dilemma when Israel is under physical attack. We have a humanitarian challenge in Gaza, with a lot of innocent Palestinians who need the help [NOTE: What about innocent Israelis in Sderot? Why is it framed as a ‘humanitarian crisis’ only for Gazans?], and Hamas decides to continue to rain rockets down on Israel.”

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Greetings, all! Aussie Dave is live blogging the election, and is taking your questions and comments. He will have experts on hand to answer your questions as well! So, what are you waiting for? Go to his site and ask the questions on your mind!

Monday, February 9, 2009

As readers of this blog might know, Arab Israelis have become increasingly and troublingly radical over the years. I covered this topic a few days ago in my discussion of the "Future Vision" document. However, please read the link below, which is a new take on the subject. It is an Arab Israeli asking the Arab Israelis to vote in 'moderates,' so as to avoid the resulting bigotry which will befall Arab Israelis, should they vote in radical Arab parties who seek the destruction of the state. His claim is that the Arab Israeli support for extremism has caused the rise of the 'racist' Israel Beitenu party, led by Avigdor Lieberman.

His words:

The Arab-Israeli leadership is increasing pushing us into anti-Israel radicalism. This extremism climaxed with the “Death to the Jews” chants during Operation Cast Lead. Here is what I have to say to those leaders: Look at what you’ve done.

We did not cry out in the face of rocket attacks on southern residents that went on for years. We did not cry out in the face of the suffering of our brethren, Gaza residents, who have been brutally repressed by Hamas. Yet we cried out, of all things, in the face of an onslaught against the most radical element in the Arab world.

The Arab-Israeli leadership won’t connect, heaven forbid, to the moderate Arab elements such as Egypt, Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority, or Jordan. These are of no interest to it. We saw Azmi Bishara, who left, and we saw where he went to.

I don’t need to explain what Hamas is all about. The Egyptians and Palestinian Authority officials are doing it better than me. They ask Hamas how it can talk about victory when the war against Israel – which it sought and advanced – was managed on the backs and blood of thousands of Palestinians that were killed, wounded, or lost their property, while Hamas’ leadership stayed at fortified bunkers or in Damascus.

So now we can accurately measure the result of this conduct: 18. Why 18? Because this is the number of Knesset seats that the polls predict for Avigdor Lieberman’s party, Yisrael Beiteinu.

Apparently, we got what we deserve. If we, citizens of the State of Israel, which has a Jewish majority, connect to the worst enemies of the State, why are we surprised that this is what we get?

Anyway. My thought is that Avigdor Lieberman may or may not be a racist, but it is a terrible idea for Jews to vote for his Israel Beitenu party, regardless. He plans on dividing Jerusalem, and casting out parts of the Galilee (which have large blocks of Arab Israelis) in exchange for a 'territory exchange' within the West Bank. It is true that Lieberman has said rather incendiary things about Arabs and Arab Israelis, but that does not mean he is necessarily acting in the best interests of Jews. One does not mean the other.

I just think it is interesting to see the strange dynamics of politics in Israel and beyond. Lieberman is branded as anti-Arab, but that does not mean he is pro-Jew. One should not imply the other. On election day, I personally am rooting against Lieberman, as I believe he represents the worst of all worlds. Given I am not Israeli, it is not my place to be advocating for any politician on this blog. but please - do not vote for Lieberman, thinking he will be a true 'hawk' on security issues! He has openly said things to contradict such sentiments!

I have been in communique with a Turkish diplomat concerning the recent deplorable actions of President Erdogan, as well as the treatment of the Israeli basketball team, and general Turkish antisemitism. Out of the blue - unprompted by me - he sent me a long article which denied the Armenian genocide. I sent his letter to a friend, who post a Bernard Lewis video, which similarly engaged in a form of denialism. This is my response to her, and to anyone who uses Bernard Lewis as justification for the offensive denial of the Armenian genocide of 1914-15.

I understand and know Bernard Lewis's statements vis a vis the Armenian genocide. (link which discusses Lewis's opinion - please note it is a very leftist site, but it accurately depicts Lewis's positions, which I have read in books he has written) He believes that many people died, but the goal was not genocide, rather, it was protecting the Turks from the Armenians who were fifth columnists. He also claims that it was not planned on the state level, but rather was initiated on the individual level, i.e., individual Turks took it upon themselves to engage in a sort of mob mentality of killing Armenians - but no genocide was planned. Anyway, his statements have been since proven false. It has since been uncovered that Hitler actually thought of of the gas chambers at Aushwitz from the model of the more primative gas chambers during the Armenian genocide. Recent documents have been unearthed which show the actual planning that went on at the state level to engage in a Final Solution of Armenians. Now, it is true that Armenians as a people were trying to form their own state and had been fighting against the Turks. However, none of that can ever justify what was done during the Armenian genocide of 1914-15. The fact that Turkey continues to deny the simple facts of history is simply revolting. The US has acknowledged its crimes against Native Americans, and against African Americans. It is what makes us a more moral and better country than Turkey. Only by acknowledging and learning from the past can you ever hope to not repeat it.

I happen to find Lewis's statements abhorrent, and blaming the victim. Lewis is a good source for some things, but not everything. He also was and remains an absurd proponent for the Oslo 'peace' process, and is a denialist for the extensive amounts of historical Islamic antisemitism. He has written whole books which deny the very well documented historicIslamic antisemitism, and as such, I look at him as someone who cannot fully be trusted in his writings. He is good as a source up to a limited point only. The fact that Bernard Lewis denies the Armenian genocide is not evidence that it is acceptable for others to do so.

He is a denialist of historical Islamic antisemitism and the Armenian genocide. Please look at his works with a rather jaundiced eye, as I do.

One note to add: I believe Bernard Lewis is sadly a far better historian than the vast majority of 'Middle Eastern studies scholars.' This fact alone should send shudders down the spines of anyone who fancies majoring in 'Middle Eastern Studies' at a major university.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

FYI, this is an old article (from 2007), but within it is information which is vital to understanding the dynamic between Jews and Arabs within Israel. The mainstream leadership of Arab Israelis have united around a "Future Vision" document which does the following:

Ellimination of the Jewish character of Israel

Ellimination of the Law of return

Ellimination of the Magen David as Israel's national symbol

Making Israel an officially bi-national state

An apparent call for right of return for Palestinians (end of the Law of return for Jews, but implementation of 'right of return' for Palestinians)

More equal distribution of government aid and benefits (this is a tricky subject; aid is not distributed equally in part because Arab Israelis do not serve in the IDF, nor do they vote in the same percentages Jews vote; much of the aid is distributed based upon voting numbers as well as status as an IDF veteran)

Please note a few background facts. Firstly, as you may or may not be aware, there are 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference. This means 57 states in the world define themselves as explicitly Muslim in character. There are numerous states which also explicitly call themselves Christian in character. In neighboring Jordan, Jews are not allowed citizenship, nor can they own land. In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are not even allowed to enter the city of Mecca, nor can non-Muslims get citizenship or even be allowed to openly practice their religion. Furthermore, any Palestinian state would most likely be defined as Islamic in character.

As far as the Law of Return goes; it is important to note that the Arab Israeli document does not mention the more than 750,000 Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries after 1948, without compensation, and for the mere crime of being Jewish. It is also important to note that while the Arab Israeli document calls for the end of the Jewish Law of Return, it calls for an explicitly Arab return to Israel, thereby reducing Jews in the one state they are a majority to a minority within Israel. This document also fails to note the fact that the 'Palestinian' refugees exist because they declared war upon the nascent state of Israel in 1948; there would be no refugee problem if there was no war which was declared upon Israel.

Thus far, no major Arab Israeli leader I am aware of has disavowed the "Future Vision" document. In fact, it appears that, though the document itself may not have been read by Arab Israelis, the concepts within them are certainly widely accepted.

In my opinion, it is harmful for Arab Israelis to learn a different history than Jewish Israelis, and have a separate education system. This means they become a separate people, and a state-within-a-state. It is problematic enough that Arab Israelis are exempt from the IDF and rarely serve in National Service. What the "Future Vision" document is calling for is essentially a "two state solution," wherein there is a 'Palestine' in the West Bank, and an Israel-of-Arab-character-possibly-to-be-renamed-an-Arab-name to the West. So really two Arab states.

Food for thought when considering what should be done re: the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Monday, February 2, 2009

I was reading over old posts, and I came upon a gem of a comment I wrote back in 2006. I still adhere to this ideology, and so I thought I would post it for you kind C4A folks:
This was written back in 2006 in response to someone who claimed "nonviolence is always possible," and that "sin is only a religious concept."

You said again and again that 'nonviolence is always possible.'

Please point to a single case of nonviolent peaceful resistence against the Nazis by the Jews that resulted in the saving of Jewish life.

Obviously, I am aware that many Jews simply fled Nazi Germany and were able to live because of this. I also know that, prior to Nazi Germany starting the Holocaust, some Jews were saved out of Germany. That is not my question.

I want to know of a single case of Jews saving Jews in the middle of the Holocaust that was done in a nonviolent manner. One single case.

You flat out said on multiple occasions that 'nonviolence is always possible' and 'killing leads to more death.'

So point to one single case of this. You would certainly have half a leg to stand on if you could point to a single case of this.

The concept of sin has been linked to religion, but also is linked to secular humanism. I am referring to crimes against humanity, and NOT against God. Many secular humanists absolutely believe in morality and right and wrong.

The fact that you lump together what Israel is doing to the 'Palestinians' and what was done to the Jews during the Holocaust is the essence of BOTH moral absolutism AND moral relativism.

All killing is wrong, according to you. This is moral absolutism.

Hence, according to your very words: I don't see violence as being any more acceptable because it wasn't indiscriminate.

That means that aiming for Bin Laden is the same as aiming for a crowd.

Both involves killing. And killing is always wrong.

Your extreme stance on killing results in presenting equivalencies between very different scenarios.

Correct me if I am wrong, but according to you, there are two choices: die or fight back. Those are the only two choices if one wants to be ethically sound. Should someone fight back, they are no longer ethically sound to you, as killing is always wrong, regardless of why it is going on.

I already presented the most extreme examples of gunmen going into your home and hoping to annhiliate your family, and you still said that killing would be wrong EVEN THEN.

I realize you are being consistent, and certainly I cannot criticize you for that! I also realize you do not give Jews a double standard that you would not apply to yourself. What you are saying does not stem from antisemitism - I see that very clearly.

What I don't get if why you insist on these logical extremes. The 'choice' between killing and being slaughtered oneself is hardly a choice at all. If what you are saying is that you are hoping to avoid a slaughter, then isn't a slaughter going to happen if Israel does not and accepts 'Palestinians' coming in and massacring Jews? And is it ethical of a nation to allow the mass slaughter of its citizens because it refuses to fight back? What is the point of nationhood if NOT to get some measure of protection against the
world?

You also said the following: In case you haven't read it enough times, my view is that genocides are always wrong because they entail the killing of innocent people. I don't make exceptions for those who wish to kill Jews any more than I make exceptions for those who wish to kill those of any other particular ethnicity or nation.

This assumes that Israeli Jews are actually trying to genocide 'Palestinians' when they fight back. This is absolutely untrue. The Israelis have the firepower such that if they wanted to, they could kill every 'Palestinian' in a matter of days. Yet they do not do this. Why? Because they take the time to only kill those who are terrorists and take great pains to avoid civilian death. This is never 100% - but the intent is not to kill civilians. As I said, this is equivalent to a robber coming into your home, shooting at you, and when you shoot back, you kill a civilian. The legal responsibility for that death is on the robber. Same applies here.

Where is there an intent to genocide? If there was such an intent, the 'Palestinians' would have ceased to exist long ago. I already showed you a link to an extensive archive of 'Palestinian textbooks' and media, showing a clear intent to wipe Israelis off the face of the earth. We know the 'Palestinians' are attempting a genocide (not all are, but at least the leadership is). This is definitively proven. If they had the firepower, they would kill every Israeli today. What do you point to when you claim that Israelis are genociding the 'Palestinians'? What shred of evidence can you even claims supports this?

The bottom line is that your claims of Israelis genociding the 'Palestinians' are as spurious as your claims of Israel being an apartheid state.

My words were as important then as they are now. My only quibble would be that I now do believe it is extraordinarily difficult to define 'sin' and 'right' and 'wrong' without religion. Unless there is a fixed star to define what is good and what is bad, I do fear moral relativism. This moral relativism can also occur with religion, and it is ultimately one of the greatest enemies of our times. It is why I have been studying Judaism now for about two years, and continue to study it weekly.

Why am I reposting this? Because of comments that have been posted on C4A in response to a post I wrote a year and a half ago concerning my night at the theater to see 'Masked' the play. The responses are not substantive, but center upon some idea that I do not believe in 'peace.' (Of course their version of 'peace' is ultimately the 'peaceful' destruction of Israel; they claim to love Jews, but they only appear to love the Jews of the Holocaust who walked peacefully to the gallows.)

I believe that these commentators believe what they believe because they fail to appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and fail to comprehend that you have to stand up for your rights. There is also a dynamic similar to the battered wife syndrome which I already commented upon in my original 'Masked' post. But I believe, in addition to the battered wife syndrome concept, these commentators simply fail to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. That is why I am posting the comment I wrote about 2 1/2 years ago.

Jews such as the ones who replied to that post will often be seen pouring over books on Yiddish and think this is an example of their 'love' of Jewry. This makes perfect sense to me. Such Jews believe in the weak and ghetto Jew as epitimized by the Jews of Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. And so "J-Street" Jews and their ilk will profess a love of Yiddish culture...only it really is a love of Jews of the Holocaust, who [mostly] walked meakly to the gallows.

This is not real love, it is ultimately hatred, despite the protestations to the contrary often witnessed by such leftist Jews. This is the sort of 'love' that the Neturei Karta engage in. They too claim to truly 'love' Jews - as long as they are the meek Jews of the Holocaust.

I was not diplomatic in my original post on the topic (and could have phrased things better), but I do stand by the sentiment I expressed concerning my encounter at 'Masked' the play.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

It is no consequence that the BBC is often lauded as the best news source on the globe. It is the BBC's organizational structure which derives so much respect for the station all over the world, portraying the BBC as a publicly funded network, independent of the government.

The BBC is funded by the tax payer through TV licensing and Foreign Office funds. According to Wikipedia, "The licence fee represents approximately 75% of the BBC's income with most of the rest coming from the sale of its programming overseas and other business allied to broadcasting such as publishing."

The BBC has to justify receiving public funding, and showing (or pretending to show) neutrality its a primary way of doing so. Failing to do so jeopardizes their justification for charging the British public a TV licensing fee. If BBC bias is brought to widespread public attention, they would face extreme difficulty in procuring continued funds from the public. This is why the BBC spent £200,000 of Tax Payers money to quash independent reports of anti-Israel bias.

...the BBC consistently fails to adhere to its legal obligations to produce impartial and accurate reporting. Our systematic, objective and rigorous research points to the firm conclusion that the BBC frequently displays marked and consistent pro-Palestinian bias...

If the BBC were to provide a pro-Hamas charity with free advertising space, it would run the risk of being too anti-Israel to justify its public funding. Furthermore, as a result of not allowing this advertisement, the BBC is enjoying being publicly lambasted by pro-Hamas activists all over the country. Such complaints act as a counterweight against reports showing its consistent anti-Israel bias, and are therefore awarding the BBC with an illusion of neutrality and help justify its continued use of public funds.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

On Israelly Cool's website, I can across a rather disturbing video of what happened in Malmo, Sweden on January 25, 2009. It was on this day that a peaceful demonstration of support for Israel was interrupted by a violence mob of Arabs who threw rotten eggs, glass bottles, rocks, and even rockets/fireworks at the peaceful lovers of Zion. The peaceful supporters of Israel had a permit to demonstrate, and the violent rocket throwing Arabs did not have such a permit. In response, the police dispersed the entire crowd, including the peaceful and permit-carrying supporters of Israel, shutting down the demonstration. The heckler's veto won, and silenced the force of good in this world. There was of course no condemnation of what happened, and silence in the world media. Likely many in the media believe the peaceful Jews "had it coming" by "daring" to simply show support for the one state in the Middle East which believes in human rights. Or maybe they had it coming by "daring" to be Jews at all. Please see the video yourself to see what hysterical moral relativism and postmodern ideas disbelieving a "right" and a "wrong" exist will ultimately result in. This is where America is heading unless things change.

The BBC is a cesspool of anti-Israel sentiment, yet it happened to do one right thing in refusing to air a call for funding Hamas. That's about the only thing to say. This action does not mean the BBC suddenly has become a pro-Israel institution.

The reality is that the "appeal for aid" was an appeal to fund Hamas, and nothing less. The BBC, for once, decided it has principles (I know, shocking!) and does not want to air an ad requesting funds to go to a jihadist terror organization.

Anyone who thinks this is a "human rights violation" or that the BBC is being unfair should ask themselves why exactly appeals for aid to Hamas should be aired on the BBC. I will ask a follow up: should the BBC air appeals to aid for Al Queda? At what point do they have even a minimal responsibility to protect the public? Or should the BBC air every terrorist propoganda video on earth, and/or every video on earth calling for aid to terror organizations?

Given the history of the BBC's craven capitulation to jihad, I expect they will cave on this soon, and air a commercial asking for aid to be sent to Hamas. I find the whole thing pathetic, that people have the shocking gall to believe this renders the BBC somehow biased in favor of Israel. The reality is that this means is that the BBC has at least a tiny vestige of principles left, but nothing more. It should be a given that it is wrong to air an appeal to aid a jihadist terror organization.

As an aside, here is a link to an article which discusses money from a UK Islamic 'aid' society going to Hamas.

UPDATE: This is a must read article which details exactly why the BBC is right - for once - in its refusal to air the disgusting "appeal to aid" for Hamas.

Here is an excerpt:

Who adjudicates on which victims to support via such charitable aid - and according to whose political morality? Why did the BBC not launch an appeal for the victims of collateral damage during Nato's bombing of Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign? And had it done so, would it have given money to ethnic Serbs as well as to Kosovars and Bosnian Muslims, all of whom were “cleansed” during the Balkan wars of that decade? What about the victims of insurgencies and counter- insurgencies in Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya or Georgia? Or Israeli victims of the next Hamas suicide attack? Indeed, what about the Palestinian victims of Hamas's hideous human rights abuses, still so shamefully under-reported by the British media as a whole?

And who are these supposedly impartial charities who are attacking Mr Thompson's (albeit belated) attempt to uphold the Corporation's traditional standards? While groups such as the British Red Cross and Christian Aid are generally impartial in other areas of the world, that cannot be said to apply to their role in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, where they regularly view the conflict through a deeply partisan lens.

In the months prior to the decision by Hamas to end the six-month ceasefire and resume rocket attacks, these charities issued a flood of one- sided denunciations aimed at Israel. Their campaign repeated tendentious and often highly inaccurate terms such as “collective punishment” and “violation of international law”. On March 6, 2008, CARE International, Cafod, Christian Aid and Oxfam (among others) published a widely quoted report under the headline “The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion”. The authors did not bother to hide their political bias against Israel, repeating standard Palestinian political rhetoric and including claims that Israeli policy “constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children” and is “illegal under international humanitarian law”.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Hamas supporters are in celebration that Israel has announced a cease-fire as Hamas continues to fire at Israeli civilian centers. Is everything that simple, or is the Israeli government using a card up its sleeve?

Consider the protests around the world defending Hamas and demanding a ceasefire. Their voices have been so loud. Imagine how impotent their voices will become if and when Hamas continues to fire at Israeli civilians after Israel announces a unilateral cease fire.

If Hamas continues to attack Israeli civilians, how long will Israelis allow that to happen before they demand military actions to resume? If the Israeli government is wise, this ceasefire will give Hamas two options.

Continue to attack Israelis, and invite reprisals.

Stop attacking Israel. (This may be the best solution to prevent Fatah taking power.)

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

This post has been inspired by a column I read on Gay Conservative Liberal's website. He believed there must be a reason Israel is hated, because it is hated so much! This is what I replied to him in a comment...

You are far off the mark in this one. Think of it this way. Six million Jews died in the Holocaust. According to you, there "must have been a reason." You fail to realize some people hate just because they are taught to hate from birth. That is the only reason, and the reason why we have an intractable problem with regards to the Israeli Arab conflict.A longer time frame of the conflict can be found on the Myths and Facts website.

To give you a long story short: there have been pogroms and attacks against Jews for thousands of years. But specifically, these attacks increased during the 20th century, under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the Holocaust, Israel was offered a state, as were the Palestinians, by the UN. The Palestinians, under the Mufti (who was an architect for Hitler's Final Solution), rejected the partition plan. This plan was to have an Israel on land which was majority Jewish due to immigration before and after the Holcaust.

Instead of accepting this state, the Palestinians (a people which did not exist at the time, and are not a seperate ethnicity from Jordanians any more than New Yorkers or New Jerseyians are seperate ethnicities) waged war upon Israel, and attempted a genocide after the Holocaust...and lost. Prior to the Israeli Arab conflict, 'refugees' were not defined as people who are part of a group that attempted a genocide and then lost.

Since 1948 (the founding of the state), the Palestinians and Arabs in general have refused to accept any state of Israel on any land at all. Instead, there has been constant terror attacks against Israel.

In 1967, there was an attempted annihilation of Israel, which was defeated in the Six Day War. This is how Israel won the Sinai, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. In response, Israel attempted to give this land - won in a defensive war - back. All they wanted was peace and recognition. Instead, in Khartoum, they got the famous "three Nos" - no peace, no recognition, no negotiations. source Since then, the jihad has not ceased. The 'two state solution' was proposed first in Oslo, only to find out that Arafat did not truly intend two states - he wanted jihad. (Abbas has not proven different) And Hamas is even further radical.The past eight years have witnessed eight years of rockets against Israel, and nary a response. Finally Israel is defending itself, and doing so in the most pinpointed way possible.

I say this war is not only justified, but necessary. If Israel does not go after Hamas in Gaza, and fails to defend the South of Israel, they lose all right to call themselves a state. The primary duty of a state is to defend its citizens.

To sum up, if you want to know the root of this conflict, read about the history of jihad. That is what this conflict is about.

As an aside, for gay reasons to support Israel, I highly suggest you read the attached link, which discusses why it is the gay thing to do to support Israel!

Link 3: Human Rights Watch (an organization extremely biased against Israel) nonetheless wrote of the extensive use of human shields, including human shields who voluntarily try to become 'shahids,' aka, martyrs.

To those who still doubt the use of human shields, I believe I have presented irrefutable proof they in fact do exist. To claim that Israel should give up and commit suicide, rather than fight against jihadists simply because they use human shields, contravenes every norm of international law. It is a biased and offensive double standard against Israel that you do not have against any other nation on earth.

I will go on. Israel uses missile technology which has the capability of changing the missile paths to avoid hitting civilians. a link right here

The IDF does everything it can - far and above what every other nation on earth does - to avoid hitting civilians. There is, as I have said, literally nothing more they can do.

The blood of every single 'civilian' in Gaza is on Hamas's hands. Caleb, if your friend actually cared for the well being of his fellow travellers, he would be anti-Hamas. But he does not care about their well being. He just cares about demonizing Israel.

There have been violent demonstrations against Jews in major cities around the world. It has gotten so bad, that now synagogues are being fire bombed and vandalized. I can assure you there was no equivalent against Muslims after 9/11 - a crime that actually was Islamically perpetrated. I have seen - with my own two eyes - open calls for the mass murder of Jews. In Golders Green, roving gangs attacked Jewish stores. In Chicago, synagogues were defaced with swastikas. On Long Island, a Jewish wedding was interrupted with calls for jihad. In France, by Strasbourg, a synagogue was firebombed. In Antwerp, roving gangs terrorized the Jewish neighborhood. In Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (more Holocaust survivors per capita than anywhere else on earth, outside Israel), there was a call for Jews to be sent to the ovens and for Israel to be nuked.

It has gotten so bad that in NYC, there now is self defense training for Jews, and the start up of a CST-equivalent (CST is a volunteer security service for Jews in the UK). Many people appear to not care or recognize these attacks, but I am deeply troubled. I have had the displeasure of personally seeing a Hamas rally and calls for the annihilation of Israel. This rally went violent. I went to a rally for Israel, and it was all about how Israel wants peace.

To claim a moral equivalence between the two is ludicrous and offensive and strips morality of all meaning.

Monday, January 12, 2009

I recently wrote a response to Lisa Goldman, which I present here for the record and for your consideration.

Let me correct a glaring mistake in this article.

Doing [half a] job and not eliminating Hamas, will strengthen the extremists. Therefore if we go with the advice advocated in this article, we would end up strengthening Hamas.

Doing a full job and eliminating Hamas, will eliminate the extremists ability to act - and therefore weaken them operationally. Anyone who doesn’t think that eliminating the operational capacity of an openly genocidal terrorist network is a positive thing needs to check themselves into a ward.

The article demands “an immediate and permanent ceasefire”, but if we have an immediate ceasefire it will not be permanent. Hamas has no interest in ceasing in its goals of annihilating Israel. Any declared ceasefire will only be bound to Israel. Advocating this immediate ceasefire is simply an attempt to limit Israel’s ability to act against Hamas and will enable Hamas to grow in strength. Furthermore, calling for an immediate ceasefire at this point shows complete hypocracy. Where was this call while Hamas was repeatedly firing at Israeli civilians? It was nowhere.

I also want to mark out the elephant: this article equates Israeli and Palestinian deaths - not noting the fact that Hamas instigated this round of fighting by attacking Israeli civilians, not noting the fact that Hamas is an opnely genocidal terrorist network, and not noting that Israel may have made history in its efforts to avoid civilian casualties through its warning of population centers of attack through leafleting and the phone (despite the fact this alerts Hamas to Israeli targets), and its utilization of precision attacks that reduce collateral damage as much as humanly possible.

I look at loss of life as a terrible thing, however I understand quite clearly that responsibility for lost life on all sides rests with Hamas as demonstrated by their refusal to distinguish their forces from any non-combatants, their refusal to renounce their [founding] exterminationist charter, and their constant attacks which coincide with their exterminationist agenda… for starters.

Lisa Goldman, by advocating that Israel stop military efforts in Gaza you are leading Israel towards being a failed state - for what is a nation that is unable to defend its own people?

Ps. Where is the letter addressed to Hamas?

Answer: "Of course there is no letter addressed to Hamas because we are hypocrites."

Red, naturally, beat me to the punch though.

Here is her response to the same article.

This letter shows a deep lack of understanding of the conflict, as well as international law. Lisa, you need to do more research before espousing this belief *which harms Am Yisrael.* I know for a fact that you already have had a negative influence upon Sandmonkey.

Now, let’s get to the facts. Firstly, Hamas refuses any offer of a ‘ceasefire.’ Secondly, should Hamas accept a UN-imposed ‘ceasefire,’ they would ironically not be bound by it according to international law. I am an attorney, but any common sense person would realize that the UN can only ‘bind’ (to the extent they bind!) MEMBER STATES. Hamas is not a member state! As such, a ‘ceasefire’ would only mean what it has meant since the dawn of the conflict: we cease, they fire.

Lisa, you appear to believe in ‘negotiations.’ I recently went to a Hamas rally (counter-demonstrated) where genocidal chants were said. Do you not know the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, wherein ‘negotiations’ have only led to hudnas with the Palestinians - i.e., reloading. Why do you want to impose such a horror upon the people of Sderot and Southern Israel? Honestly, what are you thinking? Are you even thinking?

Finally, I realize the people of Gaza are suffering. Yet it is a self-induced trauma. The Palestinians receive more aid per capita than anyone else on earth. Yet they continue to suffer because Hamas squanders this aid on guns and bombs. There are hundreds of tunnels between Gaza, Israel, and Egypt. Yet these tunnels are not used for food smuggling, but rather solely weapons smuggling. This shows the priorities of Hamas. Furthermore, as you must know, 100% of all deaths in Gaza are Hamas’s fault. They started this war and are firing from civilian locations and using women and children as human shields. Moreover, there even have been cases of women and children running to be ’shahids.’

Israel has every right to defend itself, and yet you, as an Israeli, are waging a public relations campaign against your very country in this hour of need. Shonda, is all I can say.

In short, short, your support for this letter, as well as your previous article, deeply disappoint me. They show me that you are not the interesting and informative writer I thought you were. I used to be a big fan, and now I am not. With the past two columns, I see you are part of the problem.

Since I am not going to bother checking any responses at Lisa's blog, feel free to respond here.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

No, I am not just throwing around the word Nazi for effect - lets look at this objectively.

While the NSDAP (Nazi Party) did not make the extermination of worldwide Jewry a founding principle, Hamas has. Hamas is an organisation that openly declares its intention to wipe out the Jewish people all over the world, and they made this intention clear in their founding charter.

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

This founding decoration is objectively worse than the Nazis founding documents. Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, and have ties to Iran - a nation which is also open in its genocidal hatred.

Despite this fact, I am sitting here watching the news coverage on Israel and the Arabs, astounded at how low our media can be in its coverage, presenting Hamas (and the Palestinians who elected Hamas) as victims.

Perhaps I should not be surprised. Hamas may be an openly genocidal, but so are Hezbollah. The mass media did so much to support Hezbollah during 2006, they went past the point of manipulating the news to outright fabrication. Why should I be surprised at the double-standard when we see Ahmadinejad of Iran being invited to present an "Alternative Christmas Message" to the Queen this year?

We can see the hypocracy of people through their double-standards. Notice that there have been no global outcry while Israeli families are being terrorised from barrages of rocket attacks aimed at their towns, cities, schools, hospitals and kindergartens, for years. Notice that right now, there is no talk demanding Sri Lanka halt its operation on the Tamil Tigers, yet Israel is told to stop firing so Hamas can rebuild. These hypocritical double-standards are regularly applied to the Jewish nation.

As far as I am concerned, the way Israel is treated reeks of anti-Semitism. If it makes it any better, I suspect the vast majority of those equating Israel to Hamas, or those calling for Israel to stop defending itself are simply "useful idiots", sheep for the policy makers.

During the present war between Israel and Hamas, there has been a great deal of misinformation. As such, Culture for All aims to bring you as many FACTS in an easy to understand format as is possible. As such, I thought you, dear readers, would appreciate the following:

2) FACT: Israel operated with both hands tied behind its back for eight years on end, letting about 10,000 rockets get lobbed at Sderot (and making life intolerable for the citizens of Sderot). The country failed in its duty to protect its citizens, and this fact alone made me cynical about the leadership of the Israel. It is the absolute duty and obligation of any country to defend its citizens, which, for eight years Israel was not doing. NOT ONLY did Israel fail to defend the citizens of Sderot for EIGHT YEARS, it was called a 'warmonger' when it took only small steps to eradicate the rocket attacks! Moreover, Israel left Gaza, including leaving greenhouses for the Gaza 'Palestinians' to use to set up an actual economy, and these greenhouses were destroyed in order to use these greenhouses as rocket launch sites. Let me repeat this, just so you have a deeper understanding of exactly how far Israel went to appease 'Palestinians' in the name of 'peace': The IDF went to Gush Katif (the Jewish-run 'settlement' in Gaza) and forced out about 7,500 Jews out of Gaza, all in the name of 'peace.' In response, there was a threefold increase in rockets towards Sderot. Here is a great timeline - well documented - of rockets and statistics from 2005 ('disengagement') to the present day.

Israel goes out of its way to kill as few 'civilians' as they can, even to the point of decreasing their military effectiveness. What army in the world informs their target where they are going in advance? No army but Israel! And yet Israel still gets blamed as killing all these 'civilians'? That only shows the bias of the world press and world governments.

Without exception, the death of every single 'civilian' in Gaza is the fault of Hamas. There would not be a war if Hamas did not send over 10,000 rockets into Southern Israel, with the intent of killing as many ACTUAL Israeli civilians - women and children - as possible. Then, when Israel dares to fight back - after EIGHT YEARS (and making Gaza Jew free in the process) Gaza 'civilians' are used as human shields. As such, every single death - both Israeli and 'Palestinian,' is the fault of Hamas.

4) FACT: There is a distinction between killing and murder. Not all killing is murder, and this has to be understood. Killing someone in self defense is not murder. Killing a baby in cold blood is in fact murder. As such, given every single 'Palestinian' killed by the IDF in Gaza was killed in self defense, none of these deaths were murder. Every single Israeli killed was killed in cold blood - THAT is murder. Moreover, Hamas just murdered 35 'collaborators' (i.e., Fatah members) in Gaza. THAT is murder.

5) FACT: The majority of Gaza 'Palestinians' support jihad against Israel. I am speaking of a majority of these 'Palestinians,' according to public opinion polls, as well as the blatant actions of 'Palestinians.' As a recent example, at least 300,000 Gazan 'Palestinians' recently showed up for a "Death to Israel, Death to America" hate rally in Gaza City. A 'Palestinian' dressed up as Gilad Shalit, the IDF soldier being held prisoner in Gaza, and 300,000 'Palestinians' in the crowd laughed and jeered. That shows a sick and diseased society. The fact that the society is sick and diseased means that you will see such sickness as 'Palestinian' 'civilians' running to be bombed by the IDF, you will see Pallywood productions of fake deaths, you will see bombs/rockets/missiles being launched from schools, you will see children recruited as homicide bombers, and you will see schools/mosques/media besieged by the worst form of hate education.

If you would like to see true 'peace' in the region, the only way for this to happen is for Israel to take over Gaza, throw out Hamas, take over the schools, and send an army of teachers, teaching non-hate education. This will not happen, as Israel has made it clear that this is not the goal of the IDF. As such, the most I am hoping for is for Hamas to be crippled substantially enough that they will not be sending thousands of rockets a year into Sderot, claiming they are abiding by a 'ceasefire.' This is all that I can sadly hope for. 'Peace' is utterly impossible unles the hate education is dismantled, and Israel refuses to do that, as it would require an extreme amount of casualties for it to occur. The 'two state solution' will not accomplish 'peace,' and is dead in practical terms. Meanwhile, the world (specifically, the UN and the 'quartet') continue to fund hate education and villify Israel. Those who think they are being 'generous' and 'open-minded' and think 'both sides are wrong,' do not realize that sometimes there is a right and a wrong.

This is the world we live in. In this world, there is absolute truth and right and wrong, whether people want to acknowledge this or not. When I go to 'pro-Palestinian' demonstrations, I see open calls for the murder of Jews and Israelis. That is wrong. Supporting Israel against the jihadist onslaught is right.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Below is a link to pictures that I took at the rally for Israel by the Israeli Consulate. This rally, not a counter-protest but an affirmative rally, occurred today in NYC during my lunch hour. It was so crowded, it was very hard to take pictures. At least 3,000 came out to brave the cold. Am Yisrael Chai!

There was no significant counter-protest to this, just some random Neturei Karta 'Jews.' It was so wonderful to see the Jewish people united behind a common cause, and speaking out about what is right. This pro-Israel rally, whereby the speakers spoke of how the Palestinians themselves are victims of Hamas, contrasts with what was seen a week ago, with open terror support. Every speaker I heard said how war was not desired, but was simply necessary for self defense. Moreover, none of the other rallies I attended had this level of attendance. I am so proud to be a Jew, a New Yorker, and someone who loves and appreciates humanity itself. The message was so clear: Israel wants peace and security. These are basic needs. Rest assured; the truth WILL win out in the end. And I will continue going to rallies and doing what I can to bring out the truth amidst so many lies.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Last night there was a protest against Israel that essentially was little more than a rally openly in favor of Hamas. Thankfully, Stand With Us was on the case and there was an anti-terror rally across the street. Here is a link to pictures I took on my friend Irina's camera of both rallies. You will note open terror support, including "We support the resistance in Gaza." The Neturei Karta were also out in full regalia. I told them they are a "chillul hashem," aka, a desecration of G-d's name. I nearly got into an altercation with Hamas supporters, who were out and proud of their open Hamas support. I have to repeat: this was not simply a rally against Israel's right to self defense. Rather, these Hamas supporters were openly shouting Hamas and Hizballah slogans and holding up signs in support of terrorism. I thanked every police officer I saw, and told them I loved the NYPD and valued their good work. I added that I hoped they were profiling these terrorists. In the subway home, a group of at least four Hamas members hopped on the subway car, and it quickly got ugly. They shouted at me and we nearly came to blows.

Through it all, I realized: I am so lucky to be Jewish and American. Our side is right and their side is wrong. It cannot be any more simple than that. Anyone seeing the screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth monstrosity that is the Hamas support of the anti-Israel crowd cannot possibly say those cretins are civilized human beings deserving of respect. We are right, they are wrong, and it feels good to walk tall and proud as a Jew, as an American, and as a lover of humanity itself. I am optimistic for the future, as this degeneracy cannot and will not win out.

We cannot continue to 'apologize' for being members of humanity. It does a disservice to humanity itself. We need to stop 'engaging' with these Islamonazi thugs who mean to wipe us off the map. These are barely literate buffoons who seek to destroy us. 'Dialogue' will hardly stop this hatred. The only thing that will stop it is pride in country, religion, and ourselves. Am Yisrael Chai and G-d Bless America! Have a healthy and Happy New Year (Gregorian calendar), knowing that we WILL indeed win!

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

I was thinking about someone who in my opinion overreacted to a minor comment I told her. The details of it all are not important, except to say that I realized that her overreaction was triggered by the fact that she clearly never had to deal with real pain in her life, as something so minor appeared to set her off on a train wreck.

Anyway, after all that mishegas, I had a moment of perfect clarity. I realized that I am lucky that I had pain in my life. I never realized it as clearly as I do today. I went through a turbulent childhood and young adulthood, and I had more than my fair share of pain, humiliation, and distress as I was growing up. And as a child and young adult, I never understood exactly why it was that I had to endure all that I endured. It seemed like I was simply being randomly punished. But I now realize how lucky I was to have gone through what I went through. I realized that I have grown as a person and a human being as a result of my childhood mishegas. As a result, I am a stable and mature young adult, and I know I would never react in such an erratic and overwrought fashion, as my friend reacted.

Because of my former life experiences, I am the person that I am today. Yes, I suffered at the time that everything happened. But in truth, I would not take back any of my mistakes and past heartache even if I could. Because it all made me a better and stronger person. I wish that I could have learned and grew and become stronger without having had pain in the past, but I do not think I really could have, in practical terms.

There is the expression, "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger." And it is simply true. Only those who have undergone pain in their lives have the strength of character to not fear pain in the future. Only those who have themselves endured the worst forms of gossip and humiliation frankly grow stronger and tougher and realize that, no matter what someone says about a person, ultimately, it does not matter, and as long as you believe in yourself, the opinions of others are wholly irrelevant.

The pain I had in my past gives me the strength to tackle whatever life throws at me. On an even simple level, after I broke my wrist and had it in a cast, I was less afraid of needles and pain, and now I donate blood regularly (when I have enough iron to do so!). I am lucky that I had an antisemitic ex-friend in law school who runs one of the top antisemitic websites on the internet, because that caused me to examine Judaism and Israel, and rethink my entire life perspective and ideology. It brought me to a Jewish community which I find so extremely meaningful.

And so I know that ultimately, I am lucky I had a bumpy past, the details of which are beyond the point of this post. If everything was smooth sailing, I would never have understood how to deal with even a minor wind.

Maybe this is just a small reason why bad things happen to good people, so to speak. When good people deal these bad things, it makes them better people.

Monday, December 1, 2008

This past weekend was spent in Oxford, England. I was there to visit a friend, and I decided to go to Shabbat services at the Oxford Chabad House. This past weekend also was a weekened where we learned the horrible fate of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg, of blessed memory. But for me, what I witnessed in Oxford was a chilling revelation.

The Chabad House Shabbat dinner started out pleasantly enough. Rabbi Eli Brakman runs a very warm and inviting place, where Jew and nonJew alike feels welcomed to their Shabbat meal. The Rabbi spoke eloquently about the Holtzbergs, who he knew personally, as he studied with them at the 770 yeshiva on Crown Heights, Brooklyn. I enjoyed meeting an interesting assortment of individuals who attended the Shabbat services at Oxford, mostly affiliated with the famed university. But then, the speakers spoke. The topic was Obama and his effect upon the Middle East. The first speaker was a leftist, who apparently wanted Obama to press for 'peace,' whatever that means, for Israel. The second speaker was a Palestinian, who compared Israel to Nazi Germany, and then spoke of the horrors of his two day detention in a West Bank prison, and how he made an Israeli guard break down in tears when he compared the situation to Nazi Germany. He also spoke of the need for Israel to be forced to accept 'peace.' He said he is dismayed that Obama will be too pro-Israel. The third speaker was half Jewish, half Palestinian, and again compared Israel to Nazi Germany, claiming that when a little Palestinian girl wets her bed due to Israeli aggression, it is comparable to the hell his Jewish family has endured in pogroms and Nazi camps. The fourth speaker was Jewish and spoke about the need for Obama to push for a regional peace, but was not optimistic about the chances for such a peace.

None of the speakers were actually experts on Israel, 'Palestine' (a state which does not exist), or the Middle East. They rather were Americans, pushed to speak for reasons I cannot understand.

In short, at the Chabad in Oxford, on the very night that the Holtzbergs were murdered, Israel was compared to Nazi Germany.

You can be sure I was there with a strongly worded comment or five. I spoke of the failure of Camp David, and how it is proof that 'peace' is completely impossible at this stage, and not only is it impossible, but forcing Israel to commit suicide against its will does nothing but encourage more violence. In response, of course, I was told I am a 'fanatic' 'who does not believe in peace.' In short, there was absolutely no substantive response in the slightest given.

I found it interesting that afterwards, when I spoke with the organizer of this event, the explanation given was that somehow all the speakers were zionists, and it was a positive event, in comparison to the usual events at Oxford. I was told that when Shimon Peres (a man who famously stated we need to 'close our eyes for peace,' and who is a leftist and believes in ethnically cleansing Jews from our homeland in Judea and Samaria) came to speak at Oxford, there were riots. There in short is no academic freedom at Oxford. Frankly, if I was not in town and did not complain at the Chabad house, there would be little to no opposition to the extremist positions taken. And yet I was told these were the most pro-Israel speakers to speak in a long time! I was told that true Zionist speakers will not or cannot come to Oxford!

It is very sad, the state of the world we live in. I frankly track the shonda (yiddish for 'shame') which took place at the Chabad house to the Mumbai attacks. If we are afraid to defend ourselves, if we cannot speak out against injustice, then those who seek malice in this world will exploit this. Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing." And he was right.

Why is it that at the #1 most 'elite' university in the world, pro-Israel speakers are afraid of literally being physically attacked? What sort of a world do we live in where we are not even allowed the dignity of our own narrative?

Assume, for an instance, that it is completely impossible to know who is right, either the Palestinians, or Israelis and Jews. Assume, for an instance, that 'no one narrative is better than another.' (this is completely a fallacious assumption, as there is such a thing as absolute truth, but we are assuming this for a moment)

Even under that assumption, why must we surrender our narrative to the Palestinians? Why must we give up even our own dignity? In response to blood libels, why must we apologize? This does nothing other than legitimize the blood libels! The Palestinian position has not changed even a millimeter in sixty years; if anything, it has gotten even more extremist. Yet we now live in a world of 'post-zionism,' where we have to 'understand' an enemy which wishes to destroy us.

Why do we have to 'understand' the enemy at all? There is little to no effort being made to 'understand' Jews and Zionism. The Zionist position is completely absent on campus, replaced, as it were, with the delusion of a 'two state solution,' which is little more than Auschwitz borders. Why is it that Alan Dershowitz, certainly no 'right winger,' is put on a pedestal and given a speaking tour, simply because he does not demonize the Jew?

Where is Jewish pride? Where is Jewish dignity? Why must even my own Zionist narrative be stolen from me?

We see there are people out there who seek to annihilate us not because we think one way or another. But rather, simply because we exist. Why have we given up the will to fight? Why do we even humor our enemy, and give them a forum to speak, yet we refuse to even listen to an Aryeh Eldad or Effie Eitam?

Where is our will to survive? Can it ever come back? When will a real Zionist be able to speak at Oxford without fear of physical violence? Will it literally take the moshiach coming?

Why do we so vividly and constantly have to cry about our brothers and sisters being murdered for being Jewish, and we say "never again," yet we fail to do anything substantive about this all?

Thursday, October 30, 2008

I value my freedom of expression, and I believe that everyone has the same right as I. One can hardly fathom a more fundamental instrument of one's free expression than one's face. Your face is your expression. It shows your reactions and your emotions: your happiness, your distaste, your pleasure, your comfort, your pain.

Your face is the strongest symbol of who you are. When I think of my loved ones, I conjure an image of their face. I love their face, as it is uniquely their own. It is my window into communicating with them, and they with me. I may not remember everyone’s name, but in the old cliché, "I never forget a face."

I can scarcely imagine a life where my face and its expressions were eliminated from my public expression. Indeed, I can scarcely imagine a life where I cannot stand up and freely speak my mind as myself – smiles, tears, scars and all. Yet, I must force myself to do so, because so many in our global community face (no pun intended) this very limitation. It is an uncomfortable scenario that I must create in my imagination, but to fail to do so is to fail to do my utmost to understand their experience. Yes, this article is about the Islamic veil, most specifically the niquab.

With this veiling, one still has the eyes, the "window to the soul", visible. Now even that has come under attack. Perhaps it has been for some time, and I simply am now becoming fully aware. I have certainly noticed that burqas have netting over the eyes, all but completely obscuring the eyes from view.

I must state up-front that is useless to discuss the veiling of the face as a personal choice in areas where personal choice simply isn’t an option. In far too many cases (and I would argue the majority of the cases), free choice is not involved. Social pressure, being ostracized, family/spousal demands, even the persistent threat of violence renders the choice not to veil outside of reality. In many places it is legally compulsory and enforced by religious police and vigilantes. If one does not have the freedom to say “no”, one also lacks the freedom to say “yes”. The choice has been made for you. For this reason, it is useless to speculate on choice. The very legal requirements for this demonstrate that there are many who would exercise the choice not to veil, necessitating legislation to compel women to veil against their will.

One is hard-pressed to conceive of a greater oppression than half of the species having their faces and voices barred from public life. One is hard-pressed to conceive of a greater invalidation of a person than to tell her that her face and expression aren't welcome in public life. By its very nature, this is the compulsory exclusion and silencing of half of our species from public life.

It is also a dangerous exclusion that is detrimental to society as a whole, including men. One wonders how men can learn respect women as full human beings with rights when women are perpetually faceless and shrouded. One wonders how men can learn acceptable and non-acceptable interaction with unrelated women when they are barred from such interactions, and, when such interactions do occur, cannot see the reaction of the women. One wonders how men can possibly respect women’s sexual boundaries in this way, or value their opinions and right to say “no”, when their society doesn’t value women's expression and right of choice.

It is for this reason that, sadly, this practice will have the opposite effect than the purpose/goal stated by the Saudi cleric. Rape and sexual assault is grounded in belief and justification for imposing your will on another against the other’s will. The inoculation against this behavior is a respect for a person’s right to choose and say no. This is just not possible in a society where women’s right to make their own choices isn’t respected.

While I will always respect a woman’s right to choose to veil herself, I find myself morally obligated to stand up and push for her ability to freely make that choice without fear of repercussions. Anything less isn’t choice, it is coercion.

Monday, June 30, 2008

This is the most sickening thing I have read in a long time. Israel agreed yesterday to free Samir Kuntar and at least a dozen others in exchange for the dead bodies of Regev/Goldwasser/Arad. I have to ask; why should a terror group who kidnaps a Jew/Israeli keep said person alive? There is no incentive at this point, given the trade. Kuntar was convicted for having infiltrated Israel, murdering a police officer, and then invading a home, taking a father and son captive, murdering the father in front of the son (so this was the last image the four year old saw), and then beat the four year old's head against a rock with a rifle butt. While this happened, the mother of the boy was holding her little daughter to herself in a closet, hiding from Kuntar and his gunmen, and smothered the daughter to death accidentally.

This is one of the most cold blooded and vicious murders in Israel's history. Kuntar has publicly said he has no regrets, and wants to kill more Jews. And Israel is willing to free this monster in exchange for dead bodies. This is utterly shocking. Hizballah says this shows their strength. I say that this says the officials in the Israeli government value the credo of 'no soldier left behind' even when such a credo threatens the safety and security of Jews around the world. Given Israel exists in part to protect Jews around the world, this cuts to the very heart of the values of the nation.